Alan Stang:
For many years, pulpit pansies in the pay of the powers that would like to be
have preached that Romans 13 teaches unconditional obedience to government.
Whatever government does, according to this teaching, we have to endure it,
because God has installed government for
good.

It was Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
the Russian writer, who made the "gulag archipelago" part of our language. He
won the Nobel Prize for the book of that name, lived here in exile and was
mentioned in the media almost every day—until he made the fateful speech at
Harvard, one of many universities founded to spread word of Jesus
Christ.

On June 8th, 1978,
Solzhenitsyn told a Harvard audience that "convergence" of the Soviet and
American systems was doomed. "Convergence" has of course been one of the main
purposes of the conspiracy for world government since the beginning. While he
spoke, it was well under way.

Solzhenitsyn also made these
telling comments: "As humanism in its development became more and more
materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and
manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was
able to say in 1844 that ‘communism is naturalized humanism.’" Humanism is of
course the official government religion of this country. Maybe he didn’t know
that.

He concluded as follows: "There
is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I
am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic
consciousness. . . . To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and
evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride,
self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We . . . have lost the
concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our
irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms,
only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession:
our spiritual life."

With these remarks, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn was confronting and exposing the insane Communist monsters who have
usurped control of this country. Before that speech, the Communist media had
made him an international celebrity, perhaps because the conspiracy for world
government found his revelations about the horrors of the gulag temporarily
useful. After that speech, he disappeared from public consciousness like a
comet. Today, few Americans can remember his name.

What did Solzhenitsyn say about
the gulag? "At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one’s belt is
taken away. When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the
threshold of one’s home? . . . ." The same questions that are bothering you now.
Solzhenitsyn bitterly laments the Russian failure to resist:

"And how we burned in the camps
later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative,
when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would
return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of
mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the
entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror
at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had
understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs
hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever
else was at hand? . . ."

Apparently, they had no guns.
Solzhenitsyn does not mention them. But he believes that axes, hammers, pokers,
or whatever else they had, could have done the job. He continues: ". . . After
all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good
purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of
a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with
one lonely chauffeur—what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The
Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport
and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have
ground to a halt!"

One is reminded of "Death
Wish," starring the late Charles Bronson. The architect hero was not a
terrorist, i.e., he did not kill indiscriminately. He did not kill the innocent.
He was mild, even harmless, until the guilty attacked. Then, he brought out the
hog leg and went to work. Whenever he did so, the theater audience cheered.
Acting alone, he turned New York on its ear. Other inmates, inspired, began to
do the same. Criminals were indignant. Didn’t these New Yorkers know that
packing heat was illegal? Crime fell. Imagine the effect of an epidemic of
Bronsons.

That is what Russians should
have done, says Solzhenitsyn. Of course, they didn’t do it. They "burned in
the camps later" lamenting that fact: "If . . . if . . . We didn’t love freedom
enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation. . . . We purely
and simply deserved everything that happened
afterward."

They lost everything because
they were too cowardly to act, because they didn’t love freedom enough. Of
course, they were Russians, not Americans. Instead of SWAT and IRS CID, they had
Organs. For centuries, they had lived under tyranny, benevolent or otherwise.
They were emerging from that tyranny when the Communists perpetrated their coup
by seizing a few buildings in Petrograd. They didn’t know what Communism was.
They could not look back at what the Communists had done.

They did not have the benefit
of more than two centuries of liberty. They did not have the untrammeled
American spirit. They did not have thousands of retired Marine Corps snipers who
still can stick it in your eye, and other thousands of retired Screaming Eagles
who still can bring death from the sky. They did not have the guns. They did not
have the .50 caliber rifle. They were not Americans. They had not stood with
Stonewall Jackson.

What kind of resistance is
Solzhenitsyn talking about? He is clearly not talking about a military unit, not
even about a militia or any group at all. He is talking about what we might call
leaderless, unorganized resistance, what later in the century, in Vietnam,
Americans called "targets of opportunity," the people acting individually, their
acts adding up to a devastating whole, a "life wish." There would have been
nothing to infiltrate and no leader to kill.

By then, the Russian people had
the moral right to do whatever they could get away with, like the German people
under Hitler, like anyone living under a totalitarian dictatorship. The
dictators had cancelled the law, which is a contractual agreement, so the people
who had been defrauded no longer were required to perform. If you sign a
contract to buy a house, and the owner refuses to vacate, you don’t need to make
payments.

Of course, nothing I have said
so far has any application here. Not at all. In fact, do not—do not—do not even
contemplate doing what Solzhenitsyn says he and his fellow Russians should have
done. After all, have not our Communist media utterly discredited him? I recall
it simply because I am a history buff and it is interesting history. This is
nothing more than a book review.

Certainly, I am not
suggesting anything. It would be presumptuous to tell you what to do. Your
own principles and circumstances will guide you. As Frank "The Chairman"
Sinatra, warbled, "I did it my way!" And to paraphrase the liberaloid mantra,
"If it feels right, do it."

A word should be said about
Romans 13. For many years, pulpit pansies in the pay of the powers that would
like to be have preached that Romans 13 teaches unconditional obedience to
government. Whatever government does, according to this teaching, we have to
endure it, because God has installed government for good.

Yes, He has, but since the men
who run government are men, the chance is great that they will go bad. That is
why God did the job Himself, through His judges, until His children demanded a
king. Through Samuel, He warned them what a king would do. He would eat out
their substance, etc. When stiff-necked Israelites would not yield, He gave them
Saul. Guess what? God was—is—right. Scripture is full of cases of government run
amok. When that happens, God sends someone to overthrow it.

King Jabin, the government, was
oppressing the people. Jael lulled Sisera, his commanding general, to sleep and
then nailed that old boy to the ground with a spike through his temples.
Scripture says Jael is "blessed above women." The children of Israel sang about
her in celebration of her exploit.

Eglon, king of Moab, oppressed
the people. Ehud parked a knife in his belly. His majesty was so fat his belly
closed around the knife, so that for a while the coroner couldn’t find the cause
of death until crime scene investigators showed him the weapon. Scripture says
Ehud was a deliverer whom the Lord had raised up.

Wasn’t Paul a notorious
jailbird? Wasn’t Peter? Wasn’t Jesus a criminal? He must have been, according to
today’s pansy preachers, because the government—the Sanhedrin and the
Romans—said He was. Didn’t He destroy property and use violence when He kicked
the moneychangers out? Didn’t He break the law Himself?

If you preach that the
government can do no wrong and must be obeyed blindly whatever it does, that is
where you must wind up. Romans 13 means that you must obey and defer to
government as long as it does what God installed it to do. When government stops
doing what God installed it to do—stops clearly and incontrovertibly—your
obedience is no longer required. Weren’t our Founding Fathers
criminals?

Is God a Nazi? That is the
question. If you subscribe to the preaching of today’s pansy preachers, you
believe He is. You believe you must obey Hitler because he is the government.
You believe you must defer to whatever crimes the government commits because of
what some pansy preacher says about Romans 13.

So you see, pal, the fact that
you may put your collar on backward or have three first names, etc., cuts you no
slack here. And by the way, those pansy preachers revere Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wasn’t King in the Birmingham jail when he wrote his famous letter from
Birmingham jail (if he wrote it)?

Wasn’t he there because he
defied the government? Which governments does Romans 13 say we must obey?
Regular readers will also remember that today’s Christianity has been
infiltrated from top to bottom by Communists, starting even before World War II.
Could that be the reason today’s pansy preachers pervert Romans 13? Are they
deliberately trying to neutralize the faithful?